On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Tom,
I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I mostly agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report published sooner rather than later because even if it is absolutely damning, it is in the charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to be addressing the issues raised in it.
However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being reported on.
Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than the actions you are complaining about.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
Speaking just for myself, I was actually enjoying Thomas' posts, rather than resenting them filling up my inbox.
Yours, on the other hand, I did resent: for its glib pomposity.
Regards, Andreas
*From:* Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or negative judgment".
In a statement of the form "We are (not) doing X because of Y" we call Y an "excuse".
As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review
with
the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This
response
needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in
regular
contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us.
As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response. The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves?
One other important point I want to address from your email below, too.
You
say "co-commissioned a report into your own failings". This is
inaccurate as
there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at.
Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is disingenuous.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org